3 ms·

I don't think you can really blame the state/police for this. The overwhelming majority of the British public see these kinds of things as grossly offensive an

by jiggy2011 14y ago

I don't think you can really blame the state/police for this. The overwhelming majority of the British public see these kinds of things as grossly offensive and in cases have created petitions wanting stuff like this to be illegal. This first blew up when the group "Islam4UK" demonstrated in Luton against the royal anglian regiment's homecoming parade. This spawned the EDL group to counter-protest. They later threatened to demonstrate in Wootton Basset (where dead soldiers are repatriated) and the uproar against this was huge with major newspapers all calling for the march to be banned. It is now illegal to be a member of the Islam4UK group, so they have had to change their name a bunch of times.

jb17 14y ago
Yeah, the British public is a bit sensitive when it comes to the army (and the queen). Islam4UK is a good example. They were an openly islamist group that wanted to overthrow the state to implement one based on Sharia law. No one really cared about that until they insulted 'our troops' (which eventually led to them being banned).
fingerprinter 14y ago
> I don't think you can really blame the state/police for this. This could come down to your view on the role of government, but I personally don't see that the majority opinion should be how a society is defined. There are dangers both ways, though I feel the government should always be pushing a more progressive social agenda. Gay marriage is a great current example. Obama is doing it right by pushing for it. Gillard in Australia is doing it wrong by saying "the people don't want it" and axing any proposals. Obama is fighting upstream for what is right and Gillard is basically saying "look, my hands are tied b/c the people don't want it". It's a cop-out for making an unpopular but right decision. In the case of free speech, there is little wiggle room, IMO. People need to be free to say what they want. It may not be popular, but that isn't the point. Long winded way of saying, the mass opinion shouldn't be the way we define civil societies. We need to do what is right. "Right" might be gray at times, but it is usually pretty clear when you get the smart people together and have them hash it out.

jb17 14y ago

Yeah, the British public is a bit sensitive when it comes to the army (and the queen). Islam4UK is a good example. They were an openly islamist group that wanted to overthrow the state to implement one based on Sharia law. No one really cared about that until they insulted 'our troops' (which eventually led to them being banned).

fingerprinter 14y ago

> I don't think you can really blame the state/police for this. This could come down to your view on the role of government, but I personally don't see that the majority opinion should be how a society is defined. There are dangers both ways, though I feel the government should always be pushing a more progressive social agenda. Gay marriage is a great current example. Obama is doing it right by pushing for it. Gillard in Australia is doing it wrong by saying "the people don't want it" and axing any proposals. Obama is fighting upstream for what is right and Gillard is basically saying "look, my hands are tied b/c the people don't want it". It's a cop-out for making an unpopular but right decision. In the case of free speech, there is little wiggle room, IMO. People need to be free to say what they want. It may not be popular, but that isn't the point. Long winded way of saying, the mass opinion shouldn't be the way we define civil societies. We need to do what is right. "Right" might be gray at times, but it is usually pretty clear when you get the smart people together and have them hash it out.